Almader‐Douglas, Diana

Abstract Background Despite multiple randomized trials, the role of perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) is still under debate. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we aim to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative systemic therapies for patients with CRLM. Methods We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through May 2021.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of perioperative (post, pre, or both) systemic therapies to surgery alone in patients with CRLM. The outcomes were compared according to the chemotherapy regimen using a random effects model. Outcomes of interest included disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Seven RCTs with a total of 1504 patients with CRLM were included. Six studies included post-operative treatment and one evaluated perioperative (pre- and postoperative) therapy. Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was the most used systemic therapy. NMA showed benefit of adding perioperative therapy to surgery in terms of DFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84). However, these findings did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05). NMA did not show any advantage of one regimen over another including oxaliplatin or irinotecan. Conclusions This systematic review and NMA of 7 RCTs found that the addition of perioperative systemic treatment for resectable CRLM could improve disease-free survival but not overall survival. Based on the findings, addition of perioperative treatment in resectable CRLM should be individualized weighing the risks and benefits.

Abstract Background During the past decade, a growing number of women have pursued medical careers, including in plastic surgery. However, female physicians have tended to be underrepresented in a variety of leadership roles in their respective specialties. Objectives The authors sought to evaluate the representation of female plastic surgeons on the editorial boards of high-impact plastic surgery journals. Methods The gender of editorial board members on 3 high-impact plastic surgery journals was evaluated from 2009 and 2018. The number of women on each editorial board was then compared with the number of board-certified female plastic surgeons (BCFPS) and board-certified female academic plastic surgeons (BCFAPS), a subgroup of BCFPS. Results There were 555 unique editorial board members from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, and Annals of Plastic Surgery from 2009 to 2018. During that period, 72 editors (13.0%) were women. At the beginning of the study, there were significantly fewer female editors than expected based on proportionate representation of BCFPS and BCFAPS to all board-certified plastic surgeons (P = 0.007 and 0.007, respectively). During the study, there was a 177% increase in women holding editorial board positions. At study end, women were adequately represented on all 3 editorial boards compared with their population data (BCFPS and BCFAPS). Conclusions During the 10 years of this study (2009-2018), editorial boards have overcome the underrepresentation of women on, and female plastic surgeons are currently adequately represented on the top 3 high-impact journal editorial boards.

Abstract Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are commonly associated. Co-treatment with multiple anti-thrombotic agents can increase the risk of bleeding. Purpose We sought to evaluate patient-centered outcomes in patients with AF on double therapy with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to patients with standard triple therapy, [a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy]. Methods We performed an extensive systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes of patients receiving double therapy with DOACs compared to triple therapy with VKAs in patients with AF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patient-centered outcomes were the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNB), all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. Results Four randomized controlled trials (9602 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Compared to VKAs, DOACs were associated with significantly lower ISTH major bleeding/ CRNB (RR - 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67-0.82, p < 0.00001, I2 = 11%). There were no statistically significant differences in the efficacy outcomes, including myocardial infarction (RR- 0.99, 95% CI :0.79-1.25, p = 0.96, I2 = 0%), stent thrombosis (RR - 0.97, 95% CI: 0.6-1.55, p = 0.89, I2 = 0%), ischemic stroke (RR - 0.76, 95% CI: 0.5-1.15, p = 0.19, I2 = 0%), all-cause mortality (RR - 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85-1.31, p = 0.61, I2 = 0%) and MACE (RR - 1.06, 95% CI: 0.91-1.22, p = 0.97, I2 = 0%). Conclusion Compared with triple therapy with VKAS, double therapy with DOACs is associated with a reduced risk of bleeding and is as effective in patients with AF undergoing PCI. Abstract Figure.

AbstractBackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease (CAD) are commonly associated. Cotreatment with multiple antithrombotic agents can increase the risk of bleeding. We sought to evaluate patient‐centered outcomes in patients with AF on double therapy with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to patients with standard triple therapy, [a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy].MethodsWe performed a literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of patients receiving double therapy with DOACs compared to triple therapy with VKAs in patients with AF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patient‐centered outcomes were the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNB), all‐cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and stroke.ResultsFour RCTs (9602 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Compared to VKAs, DOACs were associated with significantly lower ISTH major bleeding/ CRNB (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67‐0.82, P < .00001, I2 = 11%). There were no statistically significant differences in the efficacy outcomes, including myocardial infarction (RR: 0.99, 95% CI :0.79‐1.25, P = .96), stent thrombosis (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.6‐1.55, P = .89), ischemic stroke (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.5‐1.15, P = .19), all‐cause mortality (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85‐1.31, P = .61), and MACE (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.91‐1.22, P = .97).ConclusionCompared with triple therapy with VKAS, double therapy with DOACs is associated with a reduced risk of bleeding and is as effective in patients with AF undergoing PCI.